With the clock running down and real problems emerging on the legislative front, the president is beginning to meet with key congressional Democrats representing different factions. At New York I took a shot at suggesting what he needs to get them to understand:
We have breathlessly been told by all the Beltway insider outlets that Joe Biden has summoned various congressional Democrats to the White House in hopes of saving his 2021 legislative agenda, which is on the brink of disaster thanks to the irreconcilable demands of competing factions. For once, the eternal “Democrats in disarray” narrative is accurate. On September 27, the House is scheduled to vote on the Senate-passed infrastructure bill, a vote rebellious House “centrists” extorted from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in order to get the votes for a must-pass budget resolution. They are quietly backed by rebellious Senate centrists. Multiple House progressives, who have their own cheering gallery in the Senate, are promising to kill the infrastructure bill if it comes up before the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation bill is enacted, which won’t happen for weeks. The one sure thing is that if this transpires, House Republicans will make certain there are not enough votes for the bill in their ranks to save it.
Biden should find some way to recycle his famous words to Obama about Obamacare.
The success or failure of the governing coalition Democrats managed to secure in 2020 (and in those two crucial Senate runoffs in 2021) is about to be determined by what happens in the next few days and weeks. If they fail, there will be no tomorrow, no Plan B. Next year will be a lot like 2010, when Democrats lost the ability to pass legislation against Republican obstruction and then got clobbered at the polls. It took them eight years to recover from that debacle. Another one could be staring them in the face.
Biden remembers that, and so do many Hill veterans. He needs to impress on them that this is no time to listen to hammerheaded pollsters or greedy donors or Twitter activists. Like it or not, Biden has defined the paired infrastructure and reconciliation bills as central to his presidential legacy and to his party’s case for maintaining power. He needs to make every Democrat tempted to sabotage either bill feel that his failure would be theirs as well, whether or not they lose their own seats in 2022, which some undoubtedly will if the Biden agenda implodes.
Obviously, the president must acknowledge and show respect for the fact that legitimate differences of opinion exist in his big-tent party. But lawmakers posturing and grandstanding in order to get a shout-out at Politico as big-time wheeler-dealers are not legitimate or worthy of respect. Biden needs to challenge congressional Democrats very directly on this: Let’s go a week without any name other than mine and Nancy’s and Chuck’s appearing in the national political media. If they are questioned about intra-Democratic negotiations, they should refuse comment, go vague, or say “watch and learn.”
Why is this important? Because the centrist-progressive (and on some issues House-Senate) dynamics are reciprocal and virtually guarantee escalation. A ceasefire in factional hostilities requires some peace and quiet.
Whether it’s centrists placing some arbitrary “cap” on the size of a reconciliation bill they can accept or progressives making their votes for reconciliation contingent on inclusion of this or that priority, the proliferation of absolute and totally irreconcilable demands is what has really brought congressional Democrats to the brink of disaster.
Biden needs to show Democrats he understands how and why this is happening: It’s mostly the result of the extremely small margin of control in both Houses — which in fact, objectively speaking, gives every senator and every group of a few House members the power to destroy their party’s agenda. In the past, if that had happened, leaders might have been able to offset intraparty hostage taking by securing votes from the opposition. That’s just not practicable in the current environment. Even on the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill, Republicans are now making it clear they would love to see it go down to defeat and will work to produce that outcome.
But while expressing empathy for the temptations facing individual members, Biden has to insist that the public demands and threats stop right now and promise with whatever cold anger he can muster that there will be real consequences for those who go rogue at this sensitive moment. Successfully negotiating the size and shape of the reconciliation bill, for example, is going to be excruciatingly hard if the landscape is constantly shifting because Problem-Solver X or Progressive Caucus Y has laid down some personal marker through a press release or a staff leak.
With the clock running down on the endgame for the 2021 legislative saga, Biden and his closest congressional allies really need to adopt a strategy and demand universal support for it right now, even if that means some backtracking by congressional factions. If the infrastructure bill is going to be salvaged, Biden has to bluntly tell progressives the days of “linkage” between reconciliation and infrastructure are now over: The infrastructure bill will be on the House floor next week and it has to pass. But at the same time, Biden needs to tell centrists that while he and Pelosi and Schumer will listen to everyone’s point of view on reconciliation, he needs commitments of support now for the final product, and to threaten permanent ostracism by the entire federal government (within the limits of the law) for anyone who refuses to comply.
In asking Democratic factions and individual members to give up their leverage over one another, Biden will supply his own leverage to keep the party united. It’s probably the only thing, at this point, that will work. And what does the president have to lose in making some exceptional promises and threats of his own? He’s a 78-year-old man who has spent nearly a half-century putting himself in the position to enact the kind of legislative package that is at stake right now. If he loses it, his presidency will at best be hollow and short, and his party will go into the wilderness. Only he can stop that from happening.
Ed,
thanks for the response. It appears you posted while I was composing. I appreciate the clarification. It looks like we are more in agreement than I thought.
Tom.
Joe, I take your point and I probably missed that nuance in my pique. Thanks for highlighting that.
What irritated me initially is the implication by Reid et al that we out here in the real world need to just shut up and that our attempts to speak out against these kinds of unprincipled power plays by the Blue Dogs is somehow “unfair.” It isn’t unfair at all, nor is it premature. I have every right, as a lifelong contributing Democrat, to criticize members of my political party when I think they deserve it. And I think the Bayhs and the Liebermans deserve criticism when they team up with Republicans to start wars and to scuttle bankruptcy reform and to throw monkey wrenches in budget legislation to save this economy and to advance the Democratic agenda for which they were elected.
Kilgore doesn’t have to use such loaded, inflammatory mischaracterizations to make his point, i.e. “those who want to lump all Democratic “centrists” into the putative-‘traitor’ camp”. His dismissive tone, it seems to me, is a deliberate attempt to marginalize the views of progressives and centrists. By tossing out these loaded terms the points that you suggested he was making get lost in ever more heat and ever less light.
Thanks for all the comments. I guess I’m a bit taken aback by the idea that I’ve willfully offended any progressives. Joe Corso’s right: the whole point of my post was the Bayh crossed a critical line on a huge vote, and needs to stop putting himself forward as representative of “centrists” or much of anybody else in the Democratic Party.
As for the “S word,” “sincere”: hell, I can’t see into the man’s soul, but neither can anybody else; I find it easier to think he’s drunk his own anti-deficit kool-aid than to think he’s made some shrewd, cynical political calculation. As these comments and many others suggest, he’s terribly damaged his own standing in the Democratic Party, and no, I don’t really buy the idea that he’ll get more attention now than he would have gotten as leader of a 16-member Democratic group in the Senate, so long as he voted for the budget resolution.
So if Evan Bayh was as conniving as so many folks clearly think he is, then he’s a really poor conniver.
On one small note: to those who think Bayh’s vote for the higher exclusion and lower rate on estate taxes proves he doesn’t care about deficits, I would point out that this was the default position of virtually all Democrats until the total repeal enacted in 2001 sunsetted (at least those who didn’t support total repeal, and there were a disturbing number of those, BTW). So maybe Bayh is just trying to be consistent on this one thing. It certainly doesn’t make his opposition to the budget resolution look very brave or noble, does it?
In any event, what’s more interesting than how I or anyone else construes Bayh’s motives is the main question I tried to raise in the post: will anyone follow him now? I doubt it.
I think we’re having a problem with the word “sincere” here. the word has positive connotations that seem quite inappropriate in this context.
Does this help — a craven,amoral, money-sucking hyena can be a sincerely craven, money-sucking hyena.
correction – in the second paragraph I meant to say that Bayh was clearly in the “first” category, not the “second”
Tom:
It seems to me that Ed is making a distinction between two notions of “centrism” – as he says “between “centrists” who do want to stand aside from the Democratic Party and cut deals, and those who don’t.”
He is characterizing Bayh’s behavior as clearly in the second category and calling on him to resign in favor of in favor of “senators whose agreement with and loyalty to the Obama agenda is much less in question” if they want to be “anything other than a crude power bloc looking to shake down the administration and the congressional leadership for personal, ideological, and special-interest favors.”
As a labor-progressive Democrat myself, I don’t see any of this as insulting a progressive perspective. There are some moderate Democrats I disagree with on issues but very much want in the Democratic Party. Then there are guys we’d be better off without. I think Ed’s trying to make that distinction and not trying to put down progressives.
Here’s a little item Ed, that maybe you can address with respect to “sincere” Evan Bayh:
Thanks to the efforts of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and others, a bill allowing bankruptcy judges to cram-down mortgage payments for troubled homeowners hasn’t seen the light of day since it passed the House in early March. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is actually thinking of pulling the cram-down provision from the legislation, since it has met such fierce resistance, fueled by a misinformation campaign based on Mortgage Bankers Association talking points.
This is the kind of stuff, anti-constituent and anti- big D Democratic, that people find objectionable. Please explain to me, during these very, very tough times, that Bayh would play this kind of game. What “sincere”, “principled” objections does he have to amending the draconian bankruptcy bill, which he supported? I’ll look forward to your explanation, because I cannot understand it.
Source:
Wonk Room » Mortgage Modifications Hitting Roadblocks, As Cram-Down Bill Languishes In Senate
That’s quite a stretch, Ed. If Bayh is such a sincere “deficit hawk” then please explain his support of reducing the so-called death tax.
I agree with the gentleman above. You are completely misreading the objections to Bayh from progressives and others. It isn’t a “loyalty test” at all, and it isn’t a matter of being a “traitor.” The man is without discernible principles. The man is anti-constituent.
Bayh’s vote on the budget will provide abundant ammunition to those who want to lump all Democratic “centrists” into the putative-“traitor” camp
You know, Ed, I hope that at some point we can have a discussion without you insider strategists going out of your way to insult us with your glib, willingly obtuse “misunderstanding” of online progressives and centrists and what we are trying to do. I guess you gain some cred with your more right-of-center media buddies when you piss off “the libruls” but at some point that isn’t going to work any more.
Will you try to meet us halfway for a more constructive discussion? That would entail you actually listening and trying to understand what the objections to Bayh’s position is.
Nothing is more irritating to this old-time labor Democrat than for my perfectly reasonable positions to be constantly mischaracterized. It isn’t getting us anywhere that we want to be when you keep doing that.
lump all Democratic “centrists” into the putative-“traitor” camp even though 14 members of the “Bayh group” voted with the rest of the Democratic Caucus
Ed, I think you’re misreading the left blogosphere’s perspective. It is precisely this kind of random, ride-the-fence vacillation, untethered to any identifiable principle or fiscal rationale, that raises hackles.
This, however, sums said perspective up perfectly:
a crude power bloc looking to shake down the administration and the congressional leadership for personal, ideological, and special-interest favors
Add “and get their mugs on television” and you’ve got a post fit for the Great Orange Satan.